header-logo header-logo

A social panacea?

09 April 2009 / Finola Moss
Issue: 7364 / Categories: Features , Child law , Family
printer mail-detail

Finola Moss asks whether the Adoption Act 2002 is a step too far

* * * * * *

The Adoption Act 1926 was a response to a pressing social need for child protection and the formalisation of adoption. Legislation introducing the concept of transplanting a child for ever into a new family had been stalled for a long time, because of the abhorrence of the common law to the alienation of a parent's right to their children. An adoption still required a mentally competent parent's consent. Fifty years later, the Adoption Act 1976 allowed an adoption if such consent was being unreasonably withheld.

The Adoption and Children Act 2002 (ACA 2002) would provide expeditious adoptions for children in care with forever families. It placed a child's needs at the centre of the adoption process, aligning adoption law with the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989), dispensing with a parent's consent if thought necessary in the child's welfare. The once hallowed, inalienable common law right became silently subsumed and overridden

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll